Jussie Smollett has repeatedly seeded controversy in the years-long drama of his battle with the Illinois criminal justice system. His narcissistic journey began when he hired two actors to pretend to attack him, and it ended Thursday, November 21, when the Illinois Supreme Court reversed his criminal convictions for doing so. Smollett continues to claim he is a victim, and the latest ruling suggests – at least in one way – that he is correct.
Vindictive or Vindicated?
This is not to say that Smollett is not guilty of the crimes for which he was convicted. The Illinois Supreme Court did not overturn the conviction because of errant substance or a trial error but instead found that the original prosecutor in the case had made a deal with Smollett to pay a fine and perform community service, which rendered the subsequent trial itself unconscionable. His attorney, Nenye Uche, claimed, “This was not a prosecution based on facts, rather it was a vindictive persecution,” yet the facts of Jussie’s fraudulent claims – that he had been the victim of a racist hate crime – were always evident. The only issue for the court was whether it was unfair that he was offered a deal only to have it withdrawn in the face of public backlash and then be convicted at trial.
Nothing has been more incriminating of Smollett’s character than his conduct. His recurrent lack of accountability has served as self-persecution without any help from prosecutors, who were under intense public pressure to hold the celebrity accountable rather than allow him to get away with a cushy deal. He lied persistently to the police about the alleged incident even when the evidence against him was overwhelming. He was found to have perjured himself repeatedly and, at sentencing, showed no remorse for the crimes prosecutors alleged he had committed out of resentment against his movie studio for the way it had handled hate mail directed toward him – always the victim.
And yet, despite the lies, the faux victimhood, and every wasted judicial second that his immature behaviors caused the case, the fact is that Jussie Smollett really is a victim of injustice.
Strange Justice for Smollett
As the Illinois Supreme Court ruled:
“We are aware that this case has generated significant public interest and that many people were dissatisfied with the resolution of the original case and believed it to be unjust. Nevertheless, what would be more unjust than the resolution of any one criminal case would be a holding from this court that the State was not bound to honor agreements upon which people have detrimentally relied.”
Smollett’s attorneys, after he alleged at sentencing that he was the victim of impermissible prejudice by the judge, argued post-sentencing that he was “victimized by a racist and politicized justice system.” Now, he has been vindicated by that very same system. The Illinois Supreme Court is correct: The error here rests not on the defendant for being smart enough to accept the deal but on the prosecutor for offering the defendant an unduly mild sentence. Once an agreement is made with a prosecutor – let alone completed – it is imperative to the integrity and proper functioning of any just legal system that the State’s word is kept, even if the beneficiary dragged the nation into a racial firestorm based on his shocking abuse of the truth.
Though Jussie Smollett was a victim of injustice, there will not be much public sympathy due to his attitude. Indeed, many people are as furious about his conviction being reversed as they were when his original court diversion was so tame. He has won in the court of law but lost in the court of public opinion.
That’s a strange type of justice, in the end.
